Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi (‘the Trial Court’), whereby the detention period of the appellant (‘accused’) was extended and his default bail application was dismissed, the Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar JJ., stated that the material on record indicated that the accused persons including the present accused, were active members of ISIS. The Court stated that the accused persons were propagating the ideology of the ISIS and trying to recruit youth for furtherance of the objectives of ISIS in banned organisations. The Court stated that the order of the Trial Court extended custody not as a matter of routine but based on credible material outlining the investigative steps requiring completion.
Therefore, the Court opined that the Trial Court’s order of detention was not mechanical in nature. The accused could not have been released on account of ongoing investigation as releasing them at a crucial stage would have impeded the investigation and accordingly, dismissed the present appeal.
Background:
In the present case, an FIR was registered in Delhi, based on the information that the accused along with other co-accused, were conspiring to commit terrorist acts in Delhi and adjoining areas. Multiple raids led to the arrest of the accused persons, including the present accused. On 19-10-2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred the Delhi FIR to NIA, which was re-registered under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, Sections 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) and Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (‘ESA’). Main allegations against the accused persons were that they were propagating the ideology of ISIS and radicalising impressionable youth.
Based on the disclosure statements of the accused and his co-accused, 15 more individuals were arrested. Further, the search and arrest led to recovery of cash, arms, and digital materials.The custody of the accused, including the appellant, was extended multiple times. On 11-3-2024, the Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s default bail application under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 43D of UAPA, which led the appellant to file the present appeal seeking default bail.
Case Analysis and Decision
On perusal of material on record and guidelines laid down in Zeeshan Qamar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1114 (‘Zeeshan Qamar case’), the Court stated that the Trial Court has passed a reasoned order after due consideration of the statutory safeguards as prescribed under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA. The investigation progress was detailed in the Public Prosecutor’s Report, which clearly outlined the substantial investigation into the accused’s ISIS involvement. The Trial Court was satisfied that the investigation had progressed significantly with the extensions and noted that the investigation had not been stagnant.
The Court further stated that the material on record indicated that the accused persons including the present accused, were active members of ISIS. They were propagating the ideology of the ISIS and trying to recruit youth for furtherance of the objectives of ISIS in banned organisations. The Court stated that the order of the Trial Court extended custody not as a matter of routine but based on credible material outlining the investigative steps requiring completion. The guidelines laid down in Zeeshan Qamar case (supra) were addressed and duly complied with in the impugned order.
The Court observed that the Public Prosecutor’s report also stated that mobile headsets recovered at the accused’s instance were being forensically examined for data relevant to the case. The Report also stated that the agency was engaged in verifying links between various accused and across jurisdictions, with some individuals yet to be traced or examined. At the time when extension of custody was sought, a large amount of cash was recovered and a trail of funds which needed to be investigated.
The Court noted that at the time when extension of custody was sought, a large amount of cash was recovered and a trail of funds which needed to be investigated. The Report also suggested that there was apprehension that if the custody of the accused persons was denied then there was a high likelihood that the present accused and his accomplices would escape from the clutches of law and destroy material evidence, threaten witnesses and damage the case of the prosecution.
The Court further observed that the Public Prosecutor’s Report also suggested that the accused and his co-accused were allegedly active members of the banned terrorist organization ISIS, with a purported nexus to its unlawful activities. It was also asserted that the accused persons convened meetings and actively supported the organization in furtherance of unlawful activities. Thus, based on this, the report urged that continued detention of the accused persons was essential to national security.
Therefore, the Court opined that the Trial Court’s order of detention was not mechanical in nature. The accused could not have been released on account of ongoing investigation as releasing them at a crucial stage would have impeded the investigation.
[Mohd. Rizwan Ashraf v. NIA, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5045, decided on 24-7-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Abhinav Sekhri & Deeksha Dwivedi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv., SSP, Zeenat Malick Adv PP. Asmita Singh, Tushar Nair, Anirudh Anand, Punishk Handa, Abheet Mangleek, Disha Joshi, Gunita Dandon, Advocates with Manoj Yadav Inspector for NIA
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
